We Keep Coding

Fipy error:’’The Factor is exactly singular’’, when applying Neumann boundary conditions

We’re trying to solve a one-dimensional Coupled Continuity-Poisson problem in Fipy. When applying
Dirichlet’s conditions, it gives the correct results, but when we change the boundaries conditions to Neumann’s which is closer to our problem, it gives “The Factor is exactly singular’’ error.
Any help is highly appreciated. The code is as follows (0<x<2.5):
from fipy import *
from fipy import Grid1D, CellVariable, TransientTerm, DiffusionTerm, Viewer
import numpy as np
import math
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib import cm
from cachetools import cached, TTLCache #caching to increase the speed of python
cache = TTLCache(maxsize=100, ttl=86400) #creating the cache object: the
#first argument= the number of objects we store in the cache.
#____________________________________________________
nx=50
dx=0.05
L=nx*dx
e=math.e
m = Grid1D(nx=nx, dx=dx)
print(np.log(e))
#____________________________________________________
phi = CellVariable(mesh=m, hasOld=True, value=0.)
ne = CellVariable(mesh=m, hasOld=True, value=0.)
phi_face = phi.faceValue
ne_face = ne.faceValue
x = m.cellCenters[0]
t0 = Variable()
phi.setValue((x-1)**3)
ne.setValue(-6*(x-1))
#____________________________________________________
#cached(cache)
def S(x,t):
f=6*(x-1)*e**(-t)+54*((x-1)**2)*e**(-2.*t)
return f
#____________________________________________________
#Boundary Condition:
valueleft_phi=3*e**(-t0)
valueright_phi=6.75*e**(-t0)
valueleft_ne=-6*e**(-t0)
valueright_ne=-6*e**(-t0)
phi.faceGrad.constrain([valueleft_phi], m.facesLeft)
phi.faceGrad.constrain([valueright_phi], m.facesRight)
ne.faceGrad.constrain([valueleft_ne], m.facesLeft)
ne.faceGrad.constrain([valueright_ne], m.facesRight)
#____________________________________________________
eqn0 = DiffusionTerm(1.,var=phi)==ImplicitSourceTerm(-1.,var=ne)
eqn1 = TransientTerm(1.,var=ne) ==
VanLeerConvectionTerm(phi.faceGrad,var=ne)+S(x,t0)
eqn = eqn0 & eqn1
#____________________________________________________
steps = 1.e4
dt=1.e-4
T=dt*steps
F=dt/(dx**2)
print('F=',F)
#____________________________________________________
vi = Viewer(phi)
with open('out2.txt', 'w') as output:
while t0()<T:
print(t0)
phi.updateOld()
ne.updateOld()
res=1.e30
#for sweep in range(steps):
while res > 1.e-4:
res = eqn.sweep(dt=dt)
t0.setValue(t0()+dt)
for m in range(nx):
output.write(str(phi[m])+' ') #+ os.linesep
output.write('\n')
if __name__ == '__main__':
vi.plot()
#____________________________________________________
data = np.loadtxt('out2.txt')
X, T = np.meshgrid(np.linspace(0, L, len(data[0,:])), np.linspace(0, T,
len(data[:,0])))
fig = plt.figure(3)
ax = fig.add_subplot(111,projection='3d')
ax.plot_surface(X, T, Z=data)
plt.show(block=True)

The issue with these equations, particularly eqn0, is that they admit an infinite number of solutions when Neumann boundary conditions are applied on both boundaries. You can fix this by pinning a value somewhere with an internal fixed value. E.g., based on the analytical solution given in the comments, phi = (x-1)**3 * exp(-t), we can pin phi = 0 at x = 1 with
mask = (m.x > 1-dx/2) & (m.x < 1+dx/2)
largeValue = 1e6
value = 0.
#____________________________________________________
eqn0 = (DiffusionTerm(1.,var=phi)==ImplicitSourceTerm(-1.,var=ne)
+ ImplicitSourceTerm(mask * largeValue, var=phi) - mask * largeValue * value)
At this point, the solutions still do not agree with the expected solutions. This is because, while you have called ne.faceGrad.constrain() for the left and right boundaries, does not appear in the discretized equations. You can see this if you plot ne; the gradient is zero at both boundaries despite the constraint because FiPy never "sees" the constraint.
What does appear is the flux . By applying fixed flux boundary conditions, I obtain the expected solutions:
ne_left = 6 * numerix.exp(-t0)
ne_right = -9 * numerix.exp(-t0)
eqn1 = (TransientTerm(1.,var=ne)
== VanLeerConvectionTerm(phi.faceGrad * m.interiorFaces,var=ne)
+ S(x,t0)
+ (m.facesLeft * ne_left * phi.faceGrad).divergence
+ (m.facesRight * ne_right * phi.faceGrad).divergence)
You can probably get better convergence properties with
eqn1 = (TransientTerm(1.,var=ne)
== DiffusionTerm(coeff=ne.faceValue * m.interiorFaces, var=phi)
+ S(x,t0)
+ (m.facesLeft * ne_left * phi.faceGrad).divergence
+ (m.facesRight * ne_right * phi.faceGrad).divergence)
but either formulation seems to work.
Note: phi.faceGrad.constrain() is fine, because the flux does appear in DiffusionTerm(coeff=1., var=phi).
Separately, it appears (based on "The Factor is exactly singular") that you are solving with the SciPy LinearLUSolver. The PETSc LinearLUSolver does better, but the baseline value of the solution wanders all over the place. Calling
res = eqn.sweep(dt=dt, solver=LinearGMRESSolver())
also seems to produce stable results (without pinning an internal value). This behavior probably shouldn't be relied on; pinning a value is the right thing to do.

Runtime error: Factor is exactly singular

I am trying to implement 2 temperature models, the following equations:
C_e(∂T_e)/∂t=∇[k_e∇T_e ]-G(T_e-T_ph )+ A(r,t)
C_ph(∂T_ph)/∂t=∇[k_ph∇T_ph] + G(T_e-T_ph)
Code
from fipy.tools import numerix
import scipy
import fipy
import numpy as np
from fipy import CylindricalGrid1D
from fipy import Variable, CellVariable, TransientTerm, DiffusionTerm, Viewer, LinearLUSolver, LinearPCGSolver, \
LinearGMRESSolver, ImplicitDiffusionTerm, Grid1D
FIPY_SOLVERS = scipy
## Mesh
nr = 50
dr = 1e-7
# r = nr * dr
mesh = CylindricalGrid1D(nr=nr, dr=dr, origin=0)
x = mesh.cellCenters[0]
# Variables
T_e = CellVariable(name="electronTemp", mesh=mesh,hasOld=True)
T_e.setValue(300)
T_ph = CellVariable(name="phononTemp", mesh=mesh, hasOld=True)
T_ph.setValue(300)
G = CellVariable(name="EPC", mesh=mesh)
t = Variable()
# Material parameters
C_e = CellVariable(name="C_e", mesh=mesh)
k_e = CellVariable(name="k_e", mesh=mesh)
C_ph = CellVariable(name="C_ph", mesh=mesh)
k_ph = CellVariable(name="k_ph", mesh=mesh)
C_e = 4.15303 - (4.06897 * numerix.exp(T_e / -85120.8644))
C_ph = 4.10446 - 3.886 * numerix.exp(-T_ph / 373.8)
k_e = 0.1549 * T_e**-0.052
k_ph =1.24 + 16.29 * numerix.exp(-T_ph / 151.57)
G = numerix.exp(21.87 + 10.062 * numerix.log(numerix.log(T_e )- 5.4))
# Boundary conditions
T_e.constrain(300, where=x > 4.5e-6)
T_ph.constrain(300, where=x > 4.5e-6)
# Source 𝐴(𝑟,𝑡) = 𝑎𝐷(𝑟)𝜏−1 𝑒−𝑡/𝜏 , 𝐷(𝑟) = 𝑆𝑒 exp (−𝑟2/𝜎2)/√2𝜋𝜎2
sig = 1.0e-6
tau = 1e-15
S_e = 35
d_r = (S_e * 1.6e-9 * numerix.exp(-x**2 /sig**2)) / (numerix.sqrt(2. * 3.14 * sig**2))
A_t = numerix.exp(-t/tau)
a = (numerix.sqrt(2. * 3.14)) / (3.14 * sig)
A_r = a * d_r * tau**-1 * A_t
eq0 = (TransientTerm(var=T_e, coeff=C_e) == DiffusionTerm(var=T_e, coeff=k_e) - G*(T_e - T_ph) + A_r
eq1 =(TransientTerm(var=T_ph, coeff=C_ph) == DiffusionTerm(var=T_ph, coeff=k_ph) + G*(T_e - T_ph)
eq = eq0 & eq1
dt = 1e-18
steps = 7000
elapsed = 0.
vi = Viewer((T_e, T_ph), datamin=0., datamax=2e4)
for step in range(steps):
T_e.updateOld()
T_ph.updateOld()
vi.plot()
res = 1e100
dt *= 1.1
while res > 1:
res = eq.sweep(dt=dt)
print(t, res)
t.setValue(t + dt)
Problem
The code is working fine with very small dt = 1e-18, but I need to run it until e 1e-10.
With this time step is going to take very long time, and setting dt *= 1.1 the resduals at some point start to increase then
gives following runtime error:
factor is exactly singular
Even with very small increment dt*= 1.005 the same issue pop up.
Using dt= 1.001 runs the code for quit long time then the residual get stuck at certain value.
Questions
I there any error in the fipy formalism of the equations?
What causes the error?
Is the error because of time step increase? If yes, how can I increase my time step?

I've made a few more changes to the code that can get you to an elapsed time of 1e-10. The main changes are
Using ImplicitSourceTerm for the terms with G. This stabalizes the solution.
Applied underRelaxation=0.5 in the sweep step. This slows down the updates in the sweep loop so the feedback loop is damped down.
Removed FIPY_SOLVERS=scipy. This isn't doing anything. FIPY_SOLVERS is an environment variable that you set outside of the Python environment.
The way the boundary conditions were applied seemed strange so I applied them in a more canonical way.
The sweep loop is fixed to 10 sweeps to get to a steady state quickly. Note that as the solution gets close to a stable steady state, the residual won't get better necessarily. Probably want to go back to residual checks if you need an accurate transient.
from fipy.tools import numerix
import scipy
import fipy
import numpy as np
from fipy import CylindricalGrid1D
from fipy import Variable, CellVariable, TransientTerm, DiffusionTerm, Viewer, LinearLUSolver, LinearPCGSolver, \
LinearGMRESSolver, ImplicitDiffusionTerm, Grid1D, ImplicitSourceTerm
## Mesh
nr = 50
dr = 1e-7
# r = nr * dr
mesh = CylindricalGrid1D(nr=nr, dr=dr, origin=0)
x = mesh.cellCenters[0]
# Variables
T_e = CellVariable(name="electronTemp", mesh=mesh,hasOld=True)
T_e.setValue(300)
T_ph = CellVariable(name="phononTemp", mesh=mesh, hasOld=True)
T_ph.setValue(300)
G = CellVariable(name="EPC", mesh=mesh)
t = Variable()
# Material parameters
C_e = CellVariable(name="C_e", mesh=mesh)
k_e = CellVariable(name="k_e", mesh=mesh)
C_ph = CellVariable(name="C_ph", mesh=mesh)
k_ph = CellVariable(name="k_ph", mesh=mesh)
C_e = 4.15303 - (4.06897 * numerix.exp(T_e / -85120.8644))
C_ph = 4.10446 - 3.886 * numerix.exp(-T_ph / 373.8)
k_e = 0.1549 * T_e**-0.052
k_ph =1.24 + 16.29 * numerix.exp(-T_ph / 151.57)
G = numerix.exp(21.87 + 10.062 * numerix.log(numerix.log(T_e )- 5.4))
# Boundary conditions
T_e.constrain(300, where=mesh.facesRight)
T_ph.constrain(300, where=mesh.facesRight)
# Source 𝐴(𝑟,𝑡) = 𝑎𝐷(𝑟)𝜏−1 𝑒−𝑡/𝜏 , 𝐷(𝑟) = 𝑆𝑒 exp (−𝑟2/𝜎2)/√2𝜋𝜎2
sig = 1.0e-6
tau = 1e-15
S_e = 35
d_r = (S_e * 1.6e-9 * numerix.exp(-x**2 /sig**2)) / (numerix.sqrt(2. * 3.14 * sig**2))
A_t = numerix.exp(-t/tau)
a = (numerix.sqrt(2. * 3.14)) / (3.14 * sig)
A_r = a * d_r * tau**-1 * A_t
eq0 = (
TransientTerm(var=T_e, coeff=C_e) == \
DiffusionTerm(var=T_e, coeff=k_e) - \
ImplicitSourceTerm(coeff=G, var=T_e) + \
ImplicitSourceTerm(var=T_ph, coeff=G) + \
A_r)
eq1 = (TransientTerm(var=T_ph, coeff=C_ph) == DiffusionTerm(var=T_ph, coeff=k_ph) + ImplicitSourceTerm(var=T_e, coeff=G) - ImplicitSourceTerm(coeff=G, var=T_ph))
eq = eq0 & eq1
dt = 1e-18
steps = 7000
elapsed = 0.
vi = Viewer((T_e, T_ph), datamin=0., datamax=2e4)
for step in range(steps):
T_e.updateOld()
T_ph.updateOld()
vi.plot()
res = 1e100
dt *= 1.1
count = 0
while count < 10:
res = eq.sweep(dt=dt, underRelaxation=0.5)
print(t, res)
count += 1
print('elapsed:', t.value)
t.setValue(t + dt)
Regarding your questions.
I there any error in the fipy formalism of the equations?
Actually, no. Nothing wrong with the formalism, but better to use ImplicitSourceTerm.
What causes the error?
There are two source of instability in this system. The source terms inside the equation when written explicitly are unstable above a certain time step. Using an ImplcitSourceTerm removes this instablity. There is also some sort of instability in the coupling of the equations. I think that using under relaxation helps with that.
Is the error because of time step increase? If yes, how can I increase my time step?
Explained above.

In addition to #wd15's answer:
Your equations are extremely non-linear. You will likely benefit from Newton iterations to get decent convergence.
As #TimRoberts said, geometrically increasing the time step without bound is probably not a good idea.
I've recently posted a package called steppyngstounes that takes care of adapting timesteps. Although a standalone package, it's intended to work with FiPy. For example, you could change your solve loop to this:
from steppyngstounes import FixedStepper, PIDStepper
T_e.updateOld()
T_ph.updateOld()
for checkpoint in FixedStepper(start=0, stop=1e-10, size=1e-12):
for step in PIDStepper(start=checkpoint.begin,
stop=checkpoint.end,
size=dt):
res = 1e100
for sweep in range(10):
res = eq.sweep(dt=dt, underRelaxation=0.5)
print(t, sweep, res)
if step.succeeded(error=res / 1000):
T_e.updateOld()
T_ph.updateOld()
t.value = step.end
else:
T_e.value = T_e.old
T_ph.value = T_ph.old
print('elapsed:', t.value)
# the last step might have been smaller than possible,
# if it was near the end of the checkpoint range
dt = step.want
_ = checkpoint.succeeded()
vi.plot()
This code will update the viewer every 1e-12 time units, and adaptively make it's way between those checkpoints. There are other steppers in the package that would facilitate taking geometrically or exponentially increasing checkpoints, if that kept things more interesting.
You could probably get better overall performance by sweeping fewer times and letting the adapter take much smaller time steps in the beginning. I found that no time step was small enough to get the initial residual lower than 777.9. After the first couple of steps, the error metric could probably be much more aggressive, giving more accurate results.

Mathematical operations with ConvectionTerm() or DiffusionTerm() in FiPy

I'm currently learning how to use FiPy and eventually want to use it to solve some biological problems. I have been trying to implement the following PDE system which describes hyphal growth of fungi:
PDE system
I can implement the system without problems, as long as I ignore that the change of si over time depends on the absolute change of p over space abs(dp/dx) in the fourth equation dsi/dt. Here is my code without abs():
from fipy import *
##### produce mesh
nx= 100.
ny= nx
dx = 1/100
dy = dx
L = nx*dx
mesh = Grid2D(nx=nx,ny=ny,dx=dx,dy=dy)
x,y = mesh.cellCenters
##### parameters
b=1e+7 # branching rate (no. branches * cm^-1 * hyphae * day^-1 * (mol glucose)^-1)
f = 10. # fusion rate (no. fusions in cm * day^-1)
v = 1e+5 # cm * mol^-1 * day^-1
d = 0.5 # day^-1
r = 0. # degradation of hyphae
c1 = 9e+2 # cm * mol^-1 * day^-1
c2 = 1e-7 # mol * cm^-1
c3 = 1e+3 # cm * mol^-1 * day^-1, c1/c3 = 90% efficiency
c4 = 1e-8 # cm^-1
De = 1e-3 # diffusion of external substrate (cm² * s^-1)
Di = 1e-2 # diffusion of internal substrate (cm³ * day^-1)
Da = 0.
##### define state variables:
m = CellVariable(name="m",mesh=mesh,hasOld=True,value=0.)
mi = CellVariable(name="mi",mesh=mesh,hasOld=True,value=0.)
p = CellVariable(name="p",mesh=mesh,hasOld=True,value=0.)
si = CellVariable(name="si",mesh=mesh,hasOld=True,value=0.)
se = CellVariable(name="se",mesh=mesh,hasOld=True,value=0.)
##### differential equations
eqm = (TransientTerm(var=m)== si*v*p - ImplicitSourceTerm(var=m,coeff=d))
eqmi = (TransientTerm(var=mi)==m*d - ImplicitSourceTerm(var=mi,coeff=r))
eqp = (TransientTerm(var=p)== - ConvectionTerm(var=p,coeff=[[v]]*si) + b*si*m - ImplicitSourceTerm(var=p,coeff=f*m))
eqsi = (TransientTerm(var=si)== DiffusionTerm(var=si,coeff=Di*m)- DiffusionTerm(var=p,coeff=Da*m*si) + ImplicitSourceTerm(var=si,coeff=c1*m*se) - ImplicitSourceTerm(var=si,coeff=c2*v*p) - ConvectionTerm(var=p,coeff=[[c4*Da]]*(m*si)))
eqse = (TransientTerm(var=se) == DiffusionTerm(var=se,coeff=De) - ImplicitSourceTerm(var=se,coeff=c3*m*si))
# initial values
m0 = 100.
mi0 = 0.
p0 = 500.
si0 = 1e-5
se0 = 3e-5
r = 3. # radius of initial plug
m.setValue(m0,where=((x>(L/2-(r*dx)))&(x<(L/2+(r*dx)))&(y>(L/2-(r*dy)))&(y<(L/2+(r*dy)))))
mi.setValue(mi0,where=((x>(L/2-(r*dx)))&(x<(L/2+(r*dx)))&(y>(L/2-(r*dy)))&(y<(L/2+(r*dy)))))
p.setValue(p0,where=((x>(L/2-(r*dx)))&(x<(L/2+(r*dx)))&(y>(L/2-(r*dy)))&(y<(L/2+(r*dy)))))
si.setValue(si0,where=((x>(L/2-(r*dx)))&(x<(L/2+(r*dx)))&(y>(L/2-(r*dy)))&(y<(L/2+(r*dy)))))
se.setValue(se0)
# boundary conditions
#----------------
# simulation
eq = eqm & eqmi & eqp & eqsi & eqse
vi = Viewer((m))
from builtins import range
for t in range(100):
m.updateOld()
mi.updateOld()
p.updateOld()
si.updateOld()
se.updateOld()
eq.solve(dt=0.1)
print(t)
vi.plot()
Now, I tried to simply write
eqsi = (TransientTerm(var=si)== DiffusionTerm(var=si,coeff=Di*m)- DiffusionTerm(var=p,coeff=Da*m*si) + ImplicitSourceTerm(var=si,coeff=c1*m*se) - ImplicitSourceTerm(var=si,coeff=c2*v*p) - abs(ConvectionTerm(var=p,coeff=[[c4*Da]]*(m*si))))
which (expectedly) gives out an error: "bad operand type for abs(): 'PowerLawConvectionTerm'"
I tried to work my way around it by adding another CellVariable dpdx:
dpdx= CellVariable(name="dpdx",mesh=mesh,hasOld=True,value=0.)
eqdpdx= (dpdx == ConvectionTerm(var=p,coeff=[[1]]))
eqsi = (TransientTerm(var=si)== DiffusionTerm(var=si,coeff=Di*m)- DiffusionTerm(var=p,coeff=Da*m*si) + ImplicitSourceTerm(var=si,coeff=c1*m*se) - ImplicitSourceTerm(var=si,coeff=c2*v*p) - abs(dpdx)*c4*Da*m*si)
which then gives the error "ValueError: The truth value of an array with more than one element is ambiguous. Use a.any() or a.all()", which is probably caused by the fact that eqdpdx is not a derivative function?
My question is: Is it possible at all to perform mathematical operations with a ConvectionTerm? Can I somehow express the absolute change of p?
And also, how can I express non derivative function that change over space like eqdpdx (or any dynamic parameters)?
I looked through the FiPy manual and could not find a solution - I am sorry if my question is trivial or has been answered elsewhere.

It's important to understand what FiPy Terms are. They are human-readable expressions of parts of PDEs that can be discretized to linear algebra. If you apply some potentially non-linear function to that linear algebra, then it's not linear algebra anymore. This use is not supported and I'm not sure how it even could be.
Fortunately, you don't need it. dp/dx is not a ConvectionTerm, it's a gradient. I would write this term as
- ImplicitSourceTerm(coeff=c4*Da*m*p.grad.mag, var=si)
As a side note, 1D equations are the Devil's work. They will lead you astray every single time. You can use nabla notation like we do in the manual or you can use Einstein notation, but always keep clear in your head whether your expression is scalar or vector (or tensor or ...).

How to solve a 9-equations system of non linear DE with python?

I'm desperately trying to solve (and display the graph) a system made of nine nonlinear differential equations which model the path of a boomerang. The system is the following:
All the letters on the left side are variables, the others are either constants or known functions depending on v_G and w_z
I have tried with scipy.odeint with no conclusive results (I had this issue but the workaround did not work.)
I begin to think that the problem is linked with the fact that these equations are nonlinear or that the function in denominator might cause a singularity that the scipy solver is simply unable to handle. However, I am not familiar with that sort of mathematical knowledge.
What possibilities python-wise do I have to solve this set of equations?
EDIT : Sorry if I was not clear enough. Since it models the path of a boomerang, my goal is not to solve analytically this system (ie I don't care about the mathematical expression of each function), but rather to get the values of each function for a specific time range (say, from t1 = 0s to t2 = 15s with an interval of 0.01s between each value) in order to display the graph of each function and the graph of the center of mass of the boomerang (X,Y,Z are its coordinates).
Here is the code I tried :
import scipy.integrate as spi
import numpy as np
#Constants
I3 = 10**-3
lamb = 1
L = 5*10**-1
mu = I3
m = 0.1
Cz = 0.5
rho = 1.2
S = 0.03*0.4
Kz = 1/2*rho*S*Cz
g = 9.81
#Initial conditions
omega0 = 20*np.pi
V0 = 25
Psi0 = 0
theta0 = np.pi/2
phi0 = 0
psi0 = -np.pi/9
X0 = 0
Y0 = 0
Z0 = 1.8
INPUT = (omega0, V0, Psi0, theta0, phi0, psi0, X0, Y0, Z0) #initial conditions
def diff_eqs(t, INP):
'''The main set of equations'''
Y=np.zeros((9))
Y[0] = (1/I3) * (Kz*L*(INP[1]**2+(L*INP[0])**2))
Y[1] = -(lamb/m)*INP[1]
Y[2] = -(1/(m * INP[1])) * ( Kz*L*(INP[1]**2+(L*INP[0])**2) + m*g) + (mu/I3)/INP[0]
Y[3] = (1/(I3*INP[0]))*(-mu*INP[0]*np.sin(INP[6]))
Y[4] = (1/(I3*INP[0]*np.sin(INP[3]))) * (mu*INP[0]*np.cos(INP[5]))
Y[5] = -np.cos(INP[3])*Y[4]
Y[6] = INP[1]*(-np.cos(INP[5])*np.cos(INP[4]) + np.sin(INP[5])*np.sin(INP[4])*np.cos(INP[3]))
Y[7] = INP[1]*(-np.cos(INP[5])*np.sin(INP[4]) - np.sin(INP[5])*np.cos(INP[4])*np.cos(INP[3]))
Y[8] = INP[1]*(-np.sin(INP[5])*np.sin(INP[3]))
return Y # For odeint
t_start = 0.0
t_end = 20
t_step = 0.01
t_range = np.arange(t_start, t_end, t_step)
RES = spi.odeint(diff_eqs, INPUT, t_range)
However, I keep getting the same problem as shown here and especially the error message :
Excess work done on this call (perhaps wrong Dfun type)
I am not quite sure what it means but it looks like the solver have troubles solving the system. In any case, when I try to display the 3D path thanks to the XYZ coordinates, I just get 3 or 4 points where there should be something like 2000.
So my questions are : - Am I doing something wrong in my code ?
- If not, is there an other maybe more sophisticated tool to solve this sytem ?
- If not, is it even possible to get what I want from this system of ODEs ?
Thanks in advance

There are several issues:
if I copy the code, it does not run
the workaround you mention does not work with odeint, the given
solution uses ode
The scipy reference for odeint says:"For new code, use
scipy.integrate.solve_ivp to solve a differential equation."
the call RES = spi.odeint(diff_eqs, INPUT, t_range) should be
consistent to the function head def diff_eqs(t, INP) . Mind the
order: RES = spi.odeint(diff_eqs,t_range, INPUT)
There are some issues about to mathematical formulas too:
have a look at the 3rd formula on your picture. It has no tendency term, it starts with a zero - what does that mean ?
it's hard to check wether you have translated the formula correctly into code since the code does not follow the formulas strictly.
Below I tried a solution with scipy solve_ivp. In case A I'm able to run a pendulum, but in case B no meaningful solution for the boomerang can be found. So check the maths, I guess some error in the mathematical expressions.
For the graphics use pandas to plot all variables together (see code below).
import scipy.integrate as spi
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
def diff_eqs_boomerang(t,Y):
INP = Y
dY = np.zeros((9))
dY[0] = (1/I3) * (Kz*L*(INP[1]**2+(L*INP[0])**2))
dY[1] = -(lamb/m)*INP[1]
dY[2] = -(1/(m * INP[1])) * ( Kz*L*(INP[1]**2+(L*INP[0])**2) + m*g) + (mu/I3)/INP[0]
dY[3] = (1/(I3*INP[0]))*(-mu*INP[0]*np.sin(INP[6]))
dY[4] = (1/(I3*INP[0]*np.sin(INP[3]))) * (mu*INP[0]*np.cos(INP[5]))
dY[5] = -np.cos(INP[3])*INP[4]
dY[6] = INP[1]*(-np.cos(INP[5])*np.cos(INP[4]) + np.sin(INP[5])*np.sin(INP[4])*np.cos(INP[3]))
dY[7] = INP[1]*(-np.cos(INP[5])*np.sin(INP[4]) - np.sin(INP[5])*np.cos(INP[4])*np.cos(INP[3]))
dY[8] = INP[1]*(-np.sin(INP[5])*np.sin(INP[3]))
return dY
def diff_eqs_pendulum(t,Y):
dY = np.zeros((3))
dY[0] = Y[1]
dY[1] = -Y[0]
dY[2] = Y[0]*Y[1]
return dY
t_start, t_end = 0.0, 12.0
case = 'A'
if case == 'A': # pendulum
Y = np.array([0.1, 1.0, 0.0]);
Yres = spi.solve_ivp(diff_eqs_pendulum, [t_start, t_end], Y, method='RK45', max_step=0.01)
if case == 'B': # boomerang
Y = np.array([omega0, V0, Psi0, theta0, phi0, psi0, X0, Y0, Z0])
print('Y initial:'); print(Y); print()
Yres = spi.solve_ivp(diff_eqs_boomerang, [t_start, t_end], Y, method='RK45', max_step=0.01)
#---- graphics ---------------------
yy = pd.DataFrame(Yres.y).T
tt = np.linspace(t_start,t_end,yy.shape[0])
with plt.style.context('fivethirtyeight'):
plt.figure(1, figsize=(20,5))
plt.plot(tt,yy,lw=8, alpha=0.5);
plt.grid(axis='y')
for j in range(3):
plt.fill_between(tt,yy[j],0, alpha=0.2, label='y['+str(j)+']')
plt.legend(prop={'size':20})

Any suggestions for a Python Lasso solver that handles complex values?

I am looking for a Python Lasso solver that works with complex numbers to use in beamforming problems. The objective function is affine, XW - Y. I believe that there at least one such solver implemented for Matlab,
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~schmidtm/Software/code.html
I have tried to use scikit-learn MultiTaskLasso, following a suggestion from
Is it possible to use complex numbers as target labels in scikit learn?
The matrix 21 norm in the MultiTaskLasso is the correct way to handle the L1 norm for complex numbers. However, my approach requires some gymnastics to force the solver to follow the rules of complex multiplication. Essentially, I need to minimize the L2 norm of
[Re{X}, Im{X}] * [[Re{W}, Im{W}], [-Im{W}, Re{W}]] - [Re{Y}, Im{Y}]
I attempted to enforce the relationship between the two columns of W by adding another row to the X matrix, [-Im{X}, Re{X}], and the row [-Im{Y}, Re{Y}] to Y. This ideally would equate the cost of a change a value each column of W with the corresponding value in the other column
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.linear_model import MultiTaskLasso
# experiment specifications
numEl = 20
numLook = 1e2
arrayPosition = np.arange(numEl) * np.pi
thetaLook = np.r_[0 : np.pi : numLook * 1j] - (np.pi / 2)
thetaSource = -0.3758
# Make grid of look vectors
W = np.exp(1j * np.sin(thetaLook)[:,None] * arrayPosition)
data = np.exp(1j * np.sin(thetaSource) * arrayPosition).T
# Bartlet beamformer
bartlet = np.abs(np.dot(W.conj(), data))**2
B_bart = 10 * np.log10(np.abs(bartlet)); B_bart-=np.max(B_bart)
# Lasso setup
X = W.T
XSplit = np.vstack((np.hstack((X.real, X.imag)),\
np.hstack((-X.imag, X.real))))
YSplit = np.hstack((np.vstack((data.real, data.imag)),\
np.vstack((-data.imag, data.real)))).T
lasso_solver = MultiTaskLasso(alpha=0.1)
lasso = lasso_solver.fit(XSplit, YSplit).coef_
# Manipulate result back into complex values
stack1 = np.squeeze(lasso[0,:])
stack1 = np.squeeze(stack1[:numLook] + 1j * stack1[numLook:])
B_lasso = 10 * np.log10(np.abs(stack1) + np.spacing(1)); B_lasso -= np.max(B_lasso)
# stack1 ?= stack2 (Should be exact)
stack2 = np.squeeze(lasso[1,:])
stack2 = np.squeeze(-1j * stack2[:numLook] + stack2[numLook:])
np.testing.assert_almost_equal(stack1, stack2, decimal=1)
# Plot both beamformer results
_ = plt.plot(np.rad2deg(thetaLook), B_bart)
_ = plt.plot(np.rad2deg(thetaLook), B_lasso, 'r.')
_ = plt.ylim(-40,3); plt.ylabel('Beamformer Output, dB')
_ = plt.xlabel('Look Direction, deg')
While this approach seems to work for simple problems like the one above, it fails when the problems get more complicated. I define failure when the relationship between the first and second column of W no longer holds. A simple way to create small divergent behavior in the above example is to substitute a Ridge solver for the MultiTaskLasso.
Does anyone know of a Lasso solver that can solve the complex valued problem with rigorous treatment of complex numbers?